yeh but there is only "irrefutable" evidence in word not in actual evidence itself. And if you like to call them " transitional fossils " instead of missing links that doesn't really make a lot of difference we still know what we're talking about, actually transitional already expects that the fossil will be present which is misleading.
What I'm saying is, there will always be "missing" links unless someone can catalog each and every one of the countless ancestors that lived between you and the first strand of amino acids that began reproducing itself billions of years ago.
Irrefutable: Impossible to refute or disprove; incontrovertible
The fossils are present. What is misleading about this?
.JPG/320px-Australopithecus_sediba_MH1_(ausgestellt_in_Maropeng).JPG)
Australopithecus sediba